Agenda and draft minutes

Councillor Russell Mellor was appointed Chairman for 2012/13 and took the chair. Kathy Smith was appointed Vice-Chairman for 2012/13.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Stephen Carr, Colin Smith (who was replaced by Councillor Mrs Anne Manning) and Diane Smith (who was replaced by Councillor Julian Benington) and from Richard Harries, Mary Odoi and Max Winters.   

To record any declarations of interest from Members present.

There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 22^nd March 2012 be confirmed.

At the Committee’s previous meeting on 22^nd March 2012, it was explained that the proposal for localised pay and conditions would be discussed again when it came up for consultation (final sentence of Minute 44A).

The matter was due for consideration at the Committee’s meeting on 12^th July 2012 as the consultation period had by then started. This followed authorisation by the General Purposes and Licensing Committee on 29 May 2012 for the Assistant Chief Executive (HR) to progress the proposal to formal consultation with trade union and departmental representatives and staff.

The report to the General Purposes and Licensing Committee is attached for information along with the relevant minute from the meeting.

The Staff Side Secretary has requested that the attached Staff Side Secretary Report is also provided for the item.

Report HHR12003

The Committee considered the proposals for localised pay and conditions of service which had been approved for consultation by General Purposes and Licensing Committee on 29^th May 2012.

The Staff Side Secretary informed the Committee that as the Council had refused to ballot staff on the proposals he had carried out his own ballot – over 700 staff had voted against the proposals and only 7 supported them. He felt that it was a myth that national agreements prevented the Council making additional payments, and he reported that staff were concerned that there were no assurances about the annual pay round. He was sceptical that avoiding the uncertainty around the announcement of the national award by  the Council setting pay each year would improve budgeting as claimed. He also rejected the idea of withholding pay awards for poor performers, as there were already procedures for dealing with performance issues, and stated that staff could be rewarded under the national agreement and did not see the need for a bonus scheme. He added that the proposals did not seem to have the support of senior managers and concluded by asking the Council to withdraw them.

The Chairman emphasised that the proposals were for consultation, no final decisions had been taken and it was the Council’s intention to make pay increases if the money was available. He agreed with comments made by Councillor Arthur that the majority of Council staff were very good and would have nothing to fear from local pay awards.

Mr Kelly countered that, unlike with single status, the staff had not been given the opportunity to present their case. Staff were concerned about the lifelong attack on poor performers and mistrusted the Council’s intentions. They feared that the Council would use mass sackings and re-engagement to force the proposals through.  He had requested an assurance that staff would be paid at least at the level of the national agreement, but no such assurance had been given. He pointed out that a number of Councils had made the £250 award to low paid workers, so the Council’s assertion that it would require a change in contracts was fundamentally untrue. He warned that a major industrial dispute would result if the proposals were not withdrawn.

The Assistant Chief Executive (HR) clarified that the £250 recommendation had come from central government, not the Local Government Employers, who had decided not to make the award, and very few Councils had actually paid the extra money. He stated that the Council could not be party to a national agreement without obeying the terms of that agreement. The Council had extended the consultation period and all comments received from staff would be reported to Councillors before a decision was made. He urged the staff side to make specific suggestions for improving the proposals which he could put to Members. He confirmed that the proposals for withholding pay increases for poor performers were not a life sentence – the intention was that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 50.

Please see documents attached.

The Committee received a report on the proposals for introducing car parking charges for staff and Councillors and the review of essential car user criteria. The report included summaries of the staff representations made during the two consultations, and management responses.

The Staff Side Secretary stated that there was no support from staff for the proposals and he believed that the Council had not responded to staff concerns. The proposals amounted to a £300 pay cut for some staff, and undermined trust between employer and employees at a difficult time. The Vice-Chairman added that the proposals were unfair for those staff who needed to use their cars, for example for doing school visits.    

This item has been requested by the Staff Side with the following text:

“The staff side is conscious of the national debate that is taken place with regards to the use of volunteers being extended into public services. This is of course taking place at a time of the biggest cuts in local government’s history and the staff side are naturally concerned to ensure that the use of volunteers is not being used to replace exiting staff or services currently provided by public sector workers.

As such we believe that a clear policy needs to be agreed between the Staff Side, Unions and the Council to avoid any unnecessary conflict.

We believe that the model recently adopted by the Library Senior Management on this issue is a good template for any other services looking at this. This included:

1. a written set of principles being agreed with Management, Staff Side and the Unions using the London Consortium guidelines;
2. a written set of job roles produced for agreement; and
3. all affected staff given an opportunity to be consulted with.  

The Staff Side calls on the Council to instruct Management to sit down with the Staff Side and Unions to agree a corporate policy on this issue.”

The Staff Side were concerned to ensure that volunteers were not used to replace existing public sector staff. They believed that a clear Council policy was required on the use of volunteers, and commended the agreement recently adopted by the Library Service as a template for use across the Council.

The Assistant Chief Executive (HR) confirmed that he had already agreed to meet with the Staff Side Secretary  to discuss this.

The Committee is requested to note that the next scheduled meeting will be held on 5^th December 2012.

It was noted that the next meeting was scheduled for 5^th December 2012.